Nowhere does it even remotely extend the right to suspend it to him. Therefore it is unreasonable to assume he has it. Try again.
The Court ruled in the Prize Cases that the executive power of the government rests upon the president. The Constitution requires that every state have a republican government. The Militia Act requires that United States law operate in all the states.
Chief Justice Marshall ruled in McCullough:
"The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, as far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done by confining their choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of Congress to adopt any which might be approprate, and which were conducive to the end...to have prescribed the means by which the government, should, in all future times, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code...To have declared, that the best means shal not be used, but those alone, without which the power given would be nugatory...if we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of the government, we shall find it so pernicious in its operation that we shall be compelled to discard it..."
From McCullough v. Maryland, quoted in "American Constittutional Law"
A.T. Mason, et al. ed. 1983 p. 165.
President Lincoln had all the power and precedent he needed to suspend the Writ.
To say that it is nowhere "even remotely" extant, is simply partisanship -- and its partisanship that discredits almost everything you say. Your statements are mostly your opinion. Mine are well grounded in the words of the people who actually participated in these events.
Walt
That's nice and all, but it still says absolutely nothing about habeas corpus.
Chief Justice Marshall ruled in McCullough:
That's nice too, but Marshall also specifically ruled in Bollman that habeas corpus was a matter of the legislature, contradicting any of the implications otherwise you dishonestly purport to have existed.
President Lincoln had all the power and precedent he needed to suspend the Writ.
Sorry Walt, but that is simply false. The existing precedent on habeas corpus, Bollman, specifically said this was not so and that it was for the legislature to decide. The standing case brought in response to The Lincoln's actions, Merryman, affirmed Bollman. The Lincoln didn't like the precedent and the ruling against him so he unconstitutionally ignored it without an appeal.
To say that it is nowhere "even remotely" extant, is simply partisanship
No Walt. It's a matter of constitutional fact. Only by torturing the plain text meaning of the document and willfully ignoring precedents that directly say you are wrong are you able to suggest anything otherwise.
Mine are well grounded in the words of the people who actually participated in these events.
Really, cause the sure don't announce themselves. I guess the guy who wrote your "moderated newsgroup" clipping must be very very very old! In the meantime, I will happily point out that your attention has been directed to two individuals who actually did live in the 19th century and who actually ruled on the matter in a way DIRECTLY OPPOSITE of the version you claim, John Marshall and Roger Taney. It has also been noted that Taney's ruling was the ONLY court ruling at the time to take up the question in direct response to The Lincoln's action itself, and it ruled against him.